Are you a GenerateCustomer?

Do you have an active GP Premium or GenerateBlocks Pro license key?

Create a GenerateSupport account for GeneratePress and GenerateBlocks support in one dedicated place.

Create an account
Already have a GenerateSupport account? Login

Just browsing?

Feel free to browse the forums. Support for our free versions is provided on WordPress.org (GeneratePress, GenerateBlocks).

Want to become a premium user? Learn more below.

WCAG compliance between GP Pro with and without blocks

  • I’m writing to see if you folks have any information on WCAG compliance per the following items:

    1) GP Pro used with and without blocks. Example: do all of the components connected to Sections comply?
    2) Legacy settings in GP Pro. Example: using font icon type instead of svg
    3) Any known non-compliance with legacy plugins like WP Show Posts Pro.

    My goal here is to begin notifying clients we have still running the pre-blocks version of GP if there’s any potential risk of non-compliance and therefore greater need to update.

  • Hi there,

    a11y requirements are something we continuously review for improvement, and we’re fortunate to have many users who are helpful in highlighting any issues, and for that reason i am fairly confident that all our products current and legacy achieve the same level of WCAG compliance.

    So updating GP to Flexbox and SVG icons or replacing WP Show Posts to GenerateBlocks isn’t going to make a big difference regarding that.

  • Many thanks. I recently had a client get snagged in a compliance lawsuit and some of the issues they supposedly flagged as non-compliant are GP related. This client is running the pre-blocks so I wanted to check that angle first but would you folks mind reviewing those report items to see if you think it holds water and/or identify anything that might be resolved through a settings change?

  • For sure, if you can let us know what the issues are, then we can take a closer look and advise.

  • Great, I appreciate that. I will include a link to the doc in the private info section. I took a moment to block out anything that isn’t GP related along with all the “success” results listed. The bulk of them seem to be the same item, simply listed per use.

  • At a glance most issues are not theme related.
    I have added some notes to what i can see
    For reference #1 and #16 have GP related elements:

    #1 Elements that behave as buttons….
    One of those is the legacy Navigation Search.
    The new Navigation Modal search fixes that.
    Which can be activated by de-activating the nav search in the Customizer > Layout > Primary nav, and then you should see the new option ( might require a save and refresh )

    The other elements are related to the Calendar plugin.

    #2 Buttons should include text
    Those the Calendar Left and Right icon buttons for the Month selector

    #4 Open in new tab
    Not sure what the element is but the Theme doesn’t add any links that open in new tabs.

    #7 Elements visually appear as titles
    Can’t see the elements, but the Calender has some 700 weight fonts, and that checker is propably being a bit overzealous in thinking they should be heading based on that

    #15 Menus should be built using the HTML 5 Nav Element
    Those are the Menu Widgets in the footer
    The new Navigation block would add the <nav> tag for the landmark

    #16 Menu Items that have a dropdown
    That is a flag against the GP primany navigation.
    For improved accessibility there i would recommend the Click option for the drop down menus ( in Customizer > Layout > Primary Navigation )

    #28 ARIA issue
    thats also the Calendar plugin

  • Many thanks David:

    #1: is the new search modal available if the site isn’t using GP Blocks?

    #2: How did you effectively determine which URL those applied? This is one of the more frustrating parts of the report as they don’t make any of the reference URLs clear.

    #4: To make sure we’re looking at the same thing, I don’t think any GP related items were identified there on Page 5, which ones are you seeing (I’m wondering if Adobe’s redaction tool failed and you’re seeing items I blacked out)?

    #15: this client isn’t using GP Blocks. Is there a different solution you can recommend that will get over the compliance threshold?

    #16: Roger that. If you have any other ideas, I’m all ears. Requiring a click to engage creates a very different, and less friendly, user experience. Is there any way to allow the hover option that also crosses compliance thresholds?

  • #1 – yes
    GP and GPP need to be up to date, and the Customizer > General > Structure had to have been set to Flexbox. The Modal option should be available in Customizer > Layout > Primary Navigation. You would need to disable the legacy nav search first for it to appear as an option.

    #2 Effectively determine… i can’t say for certain where they ran the report, i did take a quick view across various pages of the site to see the consistency of header, footer and theme parts. Then reviewed the reported against the home page by searching the sites source code for anything that cropped up in the report.

    #4 Yeah the report itself had a lot of redacted content so i only commented on the areas where i could see at least some of the HTML.

    #15 If its a classic Menu Widget then it has the widget_nav_menu_args filter hook:

    https://developer.wordpress.org/reference/hooks/widget_nav_menu_args/

    And you can change its element tag to a NAV using its container arg in a PHP snippet like so:

    
    add_filter('widget_nav_menu_args', function($args){
        $args['container'] = 'nav';
        return $args;
    });
    

    #16 See my reply here:
    https://generatepress.com/forums/topic/missing-atribut-aria-expand-at-primary-menu/#post-2618316
    And further down the same topic:
    https://generatepress.com/forums/topic/missing-atribut-aria-expand-at-primary-menu/#post-2619358

    The PHP Snippet provides the code to add the necessary aria-expanded attribute
    And Javascript will toggle the attribute value on hover.

  • #1 – thanks for confirming.

    #2 – roger that. I’m still waiting for that group to send a version of the report with the reference URLs and will circle back if that happens and adds any clarity.

    #4 πŸ‘

    #15 – I sincerely appreciate the snippet!

    #16 – at first glance, everything in those threads makes sense but I will circle back if any questions arise. Should I reply here on in those respective thread (or start something new)?

  • Reply here πŸ™‚

  • Hi David, following up on this item. After putting the above changes in place, the following items are still getting flagged. If it helps, I did confirm they are using AccessiBe for the review. Info and links to report details are in the private info section.

  • Hi Drew,

    1. The skip link.
    The redacted “Sucessful Element” in the screenshot, i assume is the Skip Link thats hooked in just after the Body open tag by default on all GP Templates.
    I am not sure why they are listing the Modal Open button as a failed element ? that i do not understand.

    For 2. and 3. could you share a link to the site again ?

  • My apologies, I should have included the reference link. I will post that in the Private area. And to make things a bit easier, I have attached the report with all the unrelated pages removed. Items 12, 16, and 17 are related to GP functionality and highlighted in blue.

    There’s no worry about anything marked as successful. Let me know if anything is unclear. I’ve also included links in the private section to the snippets we put in place that should have addressed the nav menu dropdowns.

  • Ok:

    #12 That requirement is for the: Skip to Content link,
    Which GP adds like so:

    <a class="screen-reader-text skip-link" href="#content" title="Skip to content">Skip to content</a>

    And I can confirm is on the site.

    But it’s showing a Failed Element that is the Search Modal trigger. So I thinks thats a false positive of the report.

    #16 Not sure if that is a new provision, but previously I provided the snippet to add, the aria-expanded attribute. You can update that to the below to include the aria-haspopup attribute.

    
    function add_aria_expanded_attribute( $atts, $item, $args, $depth ) {
        // Check if the current menu item has children
        if ( in_array( 'menu-item-has-children', $item->classes ) ) {
            // Add the aria-expanded=false attr
            $atts['aria-expanded'] = 'false';
            $atts['aria-haspopup'] = 'true';
        }
        return $atts;
    }
    add_filter( 'nav_menu_link_attributes', 'add_aria_expanded_attribute', 10, 4 );
    

    #17 the current snippet from above, is working as I can see the aria-expanded attribute in the sites HTML.

  • I’m glad to hear you think those are false positives too, I was wondering the same thing as I couldn’t pull a fail using WAVE. We put the edit for #16 into place and it’s now passing AccessiBe’s threshold.

    Thanks so much for the assistance here and if anything, I hope it provided you folks with some useful feedback for your own ongoing efforts. πŸ™

  • You’re welcome, and thanks for the info!

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.